|
Post by masterobvious67 on Dec 2, 2011 15:10:04 GMT
ID is true in a meaningful sense, and the current establishment is meant to to stifle anything that opposes Darwin, including firing any dissenters. What has ID given us? It's given us a way to know the works of the creator by examining the effects of nature and the surrounding circumstantial evidence in its favor, by looking to science, as it currently is built upon too much naturalistic research.
|
|
B
Junior Member
Expect Us
Posts: 74
|
Post by B on Dec 2, 2011 15:31:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by masterobvious67 on Dec 2, 2011 15:34:24 GMT
ID is true. It shows that evolution is a sham.
|
|
B
Junior Member
Expect Us
Posts: 74
|
Post by B on Dec 2, 2011 16:22:55 GMT
Ugh, I am tired of people like you who can't provide any evidence but try to argue that the theory of evolution, which has been proven to be true countless times to everyone including the Catholics who accepted it as a scientific theory (No, theory does not mean "speculation with no evidence" in scientific context), is a bullshit conspiracy concocted by scientists to disprove a "creator" of some kind.
You people aren't worth a damn "discussing" things with because you just simply look in the other direction thinking you're absolutely right while digging up Creationist drivel and completely misunderstanding everything that's been offered to you while holding up something cool and complicated then pointing out that "it must have a creator!"
Key words to most likely wasting time with OP in OP: "establishment", "stifle anything that opposes Darwin", "firing any dissenters", "too much naturalistic research", "circumstantial evidence" and "the creator".
Sod off.
|
|
|
Post by Ambrose Yarwood on Dec 2, 2011 16:32:27 GMT
Ugh, I am tired of people like you who can't provide any evidence but try to argue that the theory of evolution, which has been proven to be true countless times to everyone including the Catholics who accepted it as a scientific theory (No, theory does not mean "speculation with no evidence" in scientific context), is a bullshit conspiracy concocted by scientists to disprove a "creator" of some kind. You people aren't worth a damn "discussing" things with because you just simply look in the other direction thinking you're absolutely right while digging up Creationist drivel and completely misunderstanding everything that's been offered to you while holding up something cool and complicated then pointing out that "it must have a creator!" Key words to most likely wasting time with OP in OP: "establishment", "stifle anything that opposes Darwin", "firing any dissenters", "too much naturalistic research", "circumstantial evidence" and "the creator". Sod off. That's not on. Come on, take it easy.
|
|
Bayes
Full Member
Posts: 206
|
Post by Bayes on Dec 2, 2011 17:56:33 GMT
ID is true. It shows that evolution is a sham. ID is generally put forth as an evolutionary theory. Also, could you offer some evidence please?
|
|
|
Post by masterobvious67 on Dec 2, 2011 22:00:23 GMT
I can give you all the evidence you want. You'll likely reject it because you're arrogant and conceited, but that's for another time.
|
|
Bayes
Full Member
Posts: 206
|
Post by Bayes on Dec 2, 2011 22:43:25 GMT
I can give you all the evidence you want. You'll likely reject it because you're arrogant and conceited, but that's for another time. Still waiting on evidence
|
|
|
Post by masterobvious67 on Dec 3, 2011 13:10:56 GMT
Still waiting for you to present something to counter ID.
|
|
Bayes
Full Member
Posts: 206
|
Post by Bayes on Dec 3, 2011 18:55:33 GMT
Still waiting for you to present something to counter ID. I can't counter evidence that you have not presented. as the person making the assertion the burden of proof is on you.
|
|
timo
Newbie
oyeme
Posts: 37
|
Post by timo on Dec 3, 2011 19:41:51 GMT
As far as I can tell, ID arguments boil down to this:
1. x is very complicated 2. In fact, x is so complicated it could not have come about by chance (sometimes there will even be some sort of calculation used to demonstrate that its probability is basically zero) 3. therefore, God
The problem with arguments that take this form is that even if 1 and 2 are true 3 does not follow. There's no reason to think that the only possible cause of a given phenomenon is god or random chance. Darwin himself demolished one such argument, Paley's design argument, by demonstrating that there was a third option, evolution by natural selection, that could account for biological design. In that case, chance wasn't quite as random as we thought.
And with respect to 2 itself, proponents of ID seem to leave out details in their argumentation to make the chance seem even more unlikely than they are. For example, there's this idea of irreducible complexity, which some ID advocates use to argue that a given structure could not have evolved since it only functions when all the parts are present. However, in making their arguments they tend to ignore the fact that:
-irreducibly complex systems can come sometimes about by subtracting parts (scaffolding) -irreducibly complex systems are sometimes useful in their intermediate stages. (eyes for example) -the component parts of an irreducibly complex system might not have originally served the purpose they now do. (as is the case for the bacterial flagelum)
So yeah, I think it's pseudo-scientific bunk that relies on a misreading of the scientific literature and poor argumentation. And in any case, I think it's a political movement more than anything else. It's an attempt to sneak creationism back into the classroom.
But maybe I'm wrong. What evidence do you find persuasive?
Peace
|
|
|
Post by masterobvious67 on Dec 3, 2011 22:36:37 GMT
Still waiting for you to present something to counter ID. I can't counter evidence that you have not presented. as the person making the assertion the burden of proof is on you. Others have made the case for ID. I rely on them. Problem?
|
|
|
Post by rjh01 on Dec 4, 2011 2:07:09 GMT
I can't counter evidence that you have not presented. as the person making the assertion the burden of proof is on you. Others have made the case for ID. I rely on them. Problem? That is right. Others have made the case for ID and the case is only fit to be laughed at. They either bash evolution or talk about the Bible.
|
|
|
Post by supernaut on Dec 4, 2011 4:08:01 GMT
Others have made the case for ID. I rely on them. Problem? That is right. Others have made the case for ID and the case is only fit to be laughed at. They either bash evolution or talk about the Bible. This.
|
|
timo
Newbie
oyeme
Posts: 37
|
Post by timo on Dec 4, 2011 4:19:12 GMT
I can't counter evidence that you have not presented. as the person making the assertion the burden of proof is on you. Others have made the case for ID. I rely on them. Problem? The problem is that you've created a thread in which you've asserted that ID is "rock solid." There are folks like me that would be interested in knowing what sort of evidence persuaded you. How did you come to the conclusion that ID is "rock solid"? How does it show evolution to be "a sham"? I honestly don't know what you think this board is for if you're just going to stop by and claim that you think ID is "rock solid" and demonstrates that evolution is "a sham" but then proceed to excuse yourself from a discussion of ID's merit. Do you know how discussions work?
|
|